Courtemanche v. Sec'y
| Decision Date | 28 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:12-CV-69-OC-27PRL |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
| Parties | ROBERT COURTEMANCHE, JR., Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
Petitioner, an inmate of the Florida penal system, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("petition") challenging his convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine, possession of listed chemicals, and possession of cannabis entered in 2007 by the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, Marion County, Florida (Dkt. 1). Respondent initially filed a response to the petition, arguing that the petition should be dismissed as untimely (Dkt. 6). This Court concluded that the petition was timely filed and directed Respondent to file a response to the merits of Petitioner's claims (Dkt. 10). Respondent has filed a response to the petition (Dkt. 11). Although Petitioner was given an opportunity to file a reply, he has not done so.
Petitioner alleges twelve claims: 1) the trial court erred by admitting evidence of collateral crimes at trial; 2) the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial; 3) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting his letter into evidence; 4) the prosecutor made improper comments during closing argument; trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 5) present argument that the letter was offered as mitigation evidence; 6) adequately advise him not to submit the letter to the trial court andstate attorney; 7) investigate and discover that State witnesses were going to testify as expert witnesses; 8) object to the State's failure to disclose Eddie Valez as an expert witness; 9) object to the State's failure to disclose Timothy Lipitore as an expert witness; 10) call Michael Hatfield as a witness at the motion in limine hearing; 11) investigate and obtain the deposition of Andy Harris prior to trial; and 12) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that his minimum mandatory sentence was improper.
Petitioner was charged by Information with trafficking in more than two hundred grams but less than four hundred grams of methamphetamine (count one), possession of a listed chemical (count two), and possession of twenty grams or less of cannabis (count three) (Respondent's Ex. A). After a jury trial on October 15, 2007, through October 18, 2007, Petitioner was found guilty as charged (Resp. Exs. B & Y). Petitioner was sentenced to a fifteen-year minimum mandatory sentence to be followed by a four-year term of probation for count one, to a two-year term of imprisonment for count two, and to time-served for count three (Resp. Ex. Z). The state appellate court affirmed Petitioner's convictions and sentences (Resp. Ex. H); Courtemanche v. State, 24 So. 3d 770 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Petitioner moved for discretionary review, and the Supreme Court of Florida declined to accept jurisdiction (Resp. Exs. K & M).
Petitioner filed a Motion for Post Conviction Relief pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure in which he alleged seven grounds for relief (Resp. Ex. N). After the State responded (Resp. Ex. P), the state court summarily denied the 3.850 motion (Resp. Ex. Q). The state appellate court affirmed per curiam (Resp. Ex. U); Courtemanche v. State, 63 So. 3d 778 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (table).
Petitioner also filed a successive 3.850 motion in which he alleged one claim (Resp. Ex. AA). The state court denied the motion (Resp. Ex. BB). Petitioner did not appeal the denial of his successive 3.850 motion.
On February 1, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition in this court (Dkt. 1).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and (e) as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), this court's review of the state court's factual findings is highly deferential. Those findings are presumed to be correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Similarly, the state courts' resolutions of issues of law-including constitutional issues-must be accepted unless they are found to be "contrary to" clearly established precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States or involved an "unreasonable application" of such precedent. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000). It is not enough that the federal courts believe that the state court was wrong; it must be demonstrated that the state court decision was "objectively unreasonable." Id. Breedlove v. Moore, 279 F.3d 952 (11th Cir. 2002). "Under § 2254(d), a habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported. . .the state court's decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of this Court." Wetzel v. Lambert, 132 S.Ct. 1195, 1198 (2012) (citing Harrington v. Richter, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786 (2011)).
To have a facially valid claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner must meet the two-part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Strickland's two-parttest requires Petitioner to demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and "there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. However, if a claim fails to satisfy the prejudice component, the court need not make a ruling on the performance component. Id. at 697.
"Surmounting Strickland's high bar is never an easy task." Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1485 (2010). "Establishing that a state court's application of Strickland was unreasonable under § 2254(d) is all the more difficult." Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 788. As the Richter Court explained:
The standards created by Strickland and § 2254(d) are both "highly deferential," and when the two apply in tandem, review is "doubly" so. The Strickland standard is a general one, so the range of reasonable applications is substantial. Federal habeas courts must guard against the danger of equating unreasonableness under Strickland with unreasonableness under § 2254(d). When § 2254(d) applies, the question is not whether counsel's actions were reasonable. The question is whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland's deferential standard.
Id. (citations omitted).
A § 2254 application cannot be granted unless a petitioner "has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State. . . ." 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A); Snowden v. Singletary, 135 F.3d 732, 735 (11th Cir. 1998). In other words, the state prisoner must give the state courts an opportunity to act on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas petition. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). See also, Henderson v. Campbell, 353 F.3d 880, 891 (11th Cir. 2003) () (quoting Judd v. Haley, 250 F.3d 1308, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001)); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) () (citation omitted).
Under the procedural default doctrine, "if the petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies that are no longer available, that failure is a procedural default which will bar federal habeas relief, unless either the cause and prejudice or the fundamental miscarriage of justice exception is applicable." Smith v. Jones, 256 F.3d 1135, 1138 (11th Cir. 2001). "The doctrine of procedural default was developed as a means of ensuring that federal habeas petitioners first seek relief in accordance with established state procedures." Henderson, 353 F.3d at 891 (quoting Judd v. Haley, 250 F.3d at 1313).
Pre-AEDPA decisions from the Supreme Court establish the framework governing procedural default in federal habeas cases. A procedural default will only be excused in two narrow circumstances. First, Petitioner may obtain federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim if he shows both "cause" for the default and actual "prejudice" resulting from the default. "Cause" ordinarily requires Petitioner to demonstrate that some objective factor external to the defense impeded the effort to raise the claim properly in the state court. Henderson, 353 F.3d at 892; Marek v. Singletary, 62 F.3d 1295, 1302 (11th Cir. 1995).
To show "prejudice," Petitioner must show "not merely that the errors at his trial created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his factual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions." Hollis v. Davis, 941 F.2d 1471, 1480 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170 (1982)). Petitioner must show that there is at least a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different.Henderson, 353 F.3d at 892.
Second, Petitioner may obtain federal habeas review of a procedurally defaulted claim, without a showing of cause or prejudice, if review is necessary to correct a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451 (2000); Henderson, 353 F.3d at 892. This exception is only available "in an extraordinary case, where a constitutional violation has resulted in the conviction of someone who is actually innocent." Henderson, 353 F.3d at 892. The fundamental miscarriage of justice exception concerns a petitioner's "actual" innocence rather than his "legal" innocence. Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156, 1171 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 559 (1998)). To meet this standard, a petitioner must "show that...
To continue reading
Request your trial